The Purpose of the + in Thread Titles

[Reynard]

I think that's a bit of a crowbar of separation between "reasonable debate" and "actually you're wrong and you and your players are too sensitive"

This is where I think the question really lies. Being at a transitional point (as all points are) in the D&D fandom, there is still a lot of consternation over everything from evil orcs to inherent alignments to chainmail bikinis to Eurocentric folklore and myth. But I am not sure a + in the thread title is the right tool, because it is a cudgel that swings both ways.

Consider a debate on alignment as an inherent aspect of intelligent creatures. Formerly, this wouldn't be particularly controversial, and now is almost certain to result in mod action and potential thread closing. Regardless of the side of the debate the original poster might be on, does the inclusion of a + in the thread title suddenly mean it's going to be all roses and reasoned debate. No, it means, simply, "don't disagree with me." And at that point, why are you posting a discussion thread on a public forum unless what you really want is validation?

I am of course happy to follow the rules of the board, but I don't think + threads automatically or necessarily provide for a better environment for discussion. The A Game thing makes more sense but should be a mod note, not something OP calls for.

 

[Xamnam]

Consider a debate on alignment as an inherent aspect of intelligent creatures. Formerly, this wouldn't be particularly controversial, and now is almost certain to result in mod action and potential thread closing. Regardless of the side of the debate the original poster might be on, does the inclusion of a + in the thread title suddenly mean it's going to be all roses and reasoned debate. No, it means, simply, "don't disagree with me." And at that point, why are you posting a discussion thread on a public forum unless what you really want is validation?

Similar to the exploration question above, I think there's a big difference between "Let's Debate Intelligent Animal Alignment! +" and "I Don't Like Beasts With Alignment, Here's How I Fixed It +". The first one is explicitly asking for a debate, so the plus is not going to be excluding contradicting points, it's going to be about setting the tone and trying to make sure it doesn't devolve into needing to be locked. The latter one isn't asking for a debate, so excluding people who disagree with the core premise from which they want all other discussion to flow from is a fine use of the plus there. Some folks treat any idea they disagree with like it's formally asking for a full-blown debate. And if someone does ask for a debate, but then excludes half of it, then the thread's not really going to have much participation, and I do think that would be pointed out.

I do think it's worthwhile for anyone who posts a plus thread to explicitly call out in the first post what their goal is in making it that.

 

[aco175]

Consider a debate on alignment as an inherent aspect of intelligent creatures. Formerly, this wouldn't be particularly controversial, and now is almost certain to result in mod action and potential thread closing. Regardless of the side of the debate the original poster might be on, does the inclusion of a + in the thread title suddenly mean it's going to be all roses and reasoned debate. No, it means, simply, "don't disagree with me." And at that point, why are you posting a discussion thread on a public forum unless what you really want is validation?

I think there could be a + thread on alignment. If someone wanted to say that they thought LG meant Dearth Vader and were asking for thoughts, that would be a problem. If they said LG and Vader, but were looking for ideas on how to incorporate it into his game, then I could see the value of the + thread. The first part of the thought is setting up the second and he is looking for help placing it in the game.

Would also likely need to add more saying you understand that some may disagree that Vader is LG, but you are only looking for help in the other part of the question.

Rereading this, maybe we cannot have a + thread only on alignment and only on peripheral things around alignment.

 

[Emoshin]

For me, it basically comes down to 3 questions:

1) How good is the status quo? In the past, overall, how productive has Enworld threads been for certain topics (like alignment)?

2) Is there room for improvement? If there had been more + threads on Enworld on those certain topics, is there any chance of productivity increasing (even like +10%)?

3) What's the worst that could happen? If the answer to #2 is yes, what is stopping us from trying to do more + threads than before? If it fails, we learned something we didn't know before. If it succeeds, then why isn't that a good thing?

 

[Umbran]

I guess "don't argue with the thread assumptions" is a good way to focus discussion but has the potential to shut down reasonable debate on the subject as well.

1) You can have that debate in another thread. You just don't get to hijack a thread to have a debate that it wasn't intended to host.

2) Not everything must always be up for debate.

 

[BookTenTiger]

This is where I think the question really lies. Being at a transitional point (as all points are) in the D&D fandom, there is still a lot of consternation over everything from evil orcs to inherent alignments to chainmail bikinis to Eurocentric folklore and myth. But I am not sure a + in the thread title is the right tool, because it is a cudgel that swings both ways.

Consider a debate on alignment as an inherent aspect of intelligent creatures. Formerly, this wouldn't be particularly controversial, and now is almost certain to result in mod action and potential thread closing. Regardless of the side of the debate the original poster might be on, does the inclusion of a + in the thread title suddenly mean it's going to be all roses and reasoned debate. No, it means, simply, "don't disagree with me." And at that point, why are you posting a discussion thread on a public forum unless what you really want is validation?

I am of course happy to follow the rules of the board, but I don't think + threads automatically or necessarily provide for a better environment for discussion. The A Game thing makes more sense but should be a mod note, not something OP calls for.

But again, a + thread would only be a cudgel if you could not then go and start your own thread about your own ideas.

If I start a thread titled "Paladins Are Boring (+)" and you strongly disagree... Then either don't read that thread, or start your own thread called "Paladins Are Exciting (+)".

 

[Redwizard007]

100% chance that i regret posting this, but what the hell.

I have seen a number of "+" posts over the years, there is at least one getting some attention right now, and they largely seem to end up with bright red Mod-scrawl all over them, name calling, the questioning of commenters values, ethics, and parentage, and a general lack of civility. It has gotten to the point that when I see a "+" post, I tend to not even read it, for fear of running face first into a pointless argument about why Star Wars is clearly superior to Startrek, how Hollowworld could be updated to avoid cultural taboos while caricaturizing even more real world cultures, or water isn't wet (+++).

So, what is the point of a +++ conversation? On its face, they are saying, "if you agree with my base premise, please contribute, and otherwise move on," and that seems fine. We don't have to engage. We all have the option to let conspiracy buffs question the moon landing, or the existence of a deep-state conspiracy that is pulling the strings at WotC to add anthromorphic caterpillars to 6e in place of our beloved gnomes, or even the efficacy of modern medicine, BUT there are some who feel that allowing such (probably) misguided opinions a forum without challenging some of their core concepts is in its self a failure. Perhaps a failure of education, or morals, or critical thinking, but a failure that we can not make in good conscience. So we engage. We discuss. We dig into the why, and the what, and the how, and before long we get, "hey, bud. This is a +++ thread, so if you don't agree that anthropomorphic caterpillars are better than gnomes then you shouldn't be commenting," and that is infuriating.

On every forum that I have ever seen, the number 1 rule usually boils down to "don't be a dick." Now, I haven't always followed that rule as closely as I should have, and I regret that, but I have never once tried to hide an unpopular opinion behind a +++ post, although I considered doing it here. Message boards from ENWorld to Reddit are a place where I come to get differing perspectives. If I wanted an echo chamber I would be on Facebook.

I wanted to posit a question, or a poll, but I guess a rambling rant was more cathartic. So, how do you feel about + threads?

 

[Gradine]

Look, all I'm saying is that, as someone who has had to deal with more than their fair share of sealions, who has had threads shut down as people insist on being debated, that opening a thread up to all ideas and arguments can actually hurt.

Thinking that you are owed a debate at any time from any one is one of my biggest pet peeves.

 

[Gradine]

1) You can have that debate in another thread. You just don't get to hijack a thread to have a debate that it wasn't intended to host.

2) Not everything must always be up for debate.

 

[Cadence]

See also: The Purpose of the + in Thread Titles